STATEMENT 



TKCES c^omivcittese: 



APPOINTED BY TUE 



Connmtion on iBini)-Mi(l Sslanh, 



COJIPOSED OF 



^REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DISTRICTSl 



FRONTING ON THE DELAWRE RIVER, 



BOARD OF PORT WARDENS, AND THF CITY COUNCILS. 



MADE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE BY 

H. J. BROWN, CHAIRMAN. 

March loth, 1854. 



PHILADELPHIA : 

CRISSY & MARKLEY, PRINTERS, 

(SoIUsmitfjs ?Han, iiira-rp Strut. 
1854. 












<^ 



STATEMENT 



■3723:^3 C::J<033^3M:Z"Z"TE5ES 



APPOINTED BY THE 



Conomtioii m IBinb-Jliill Islanii, 



COMPOSED OF 



REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DISTRICTS 



FRONTING ON THE DELAWARE RIVER 



BOARD OF PORT WARDENS, AND THE CITY COUNCILS. 



MADE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE BY 

H. J. BROWN, CHAIRMAN, 

March 15th, 1854. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
CRISSY & MARKLEY, PRINTERS, 
(5oIIij5mit^j5 ?^all, I^iiirars Siutt ' 
1854. 



Fi5i 
.VInBn 



STATEMENT 

ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE, 

BY THE CHAIRMAN. 



With a view to the final settlement of the question of title to 
Wind-mill Island, the Board of Commissioners of the District 
of the Northern Liberties, on motion of Peter F. Laws, Esq., 
created a committee of three, and solicited the appointment of 
similar committees by the other Districts fronting on the Dela- 
ware, the Board of Port Wardens and the City Councils, to meet 
in convention. Such a convention met during the latter part of 
February, 1854, at the City Hall. A memorial to the Legis- 
lature of Pennsylvania was adopted, praying that the title to 
Wind-mill Island might be vested in the consolidated City of 
Philadelphia, for public purposes. The memorial was presented 
by a committee sent to the State Capitol for that purpose. 
Another petitioner, Mr. Geo. N. Tatham, was there, asking that 
an alleged title to the same island might be confirmed. The 
purpose of this statement is, mainly, to show the justice, utility 
and reasonableness of the prayer of the City and Districts, and 
incidentally, the positive invalidity of any claim which Mr. 
Tatham has hitherto presented. 

In 1681, according to Holmes' map of the Province of Penn- 
sylvania, two islets are found in the Delaware, in the immediate 
vicinity of the City — one opposite Pine and Spruce streets, and 
the other opposite Wicaco, better known now as Southwark. 
These islets appear to have had no names. About a century 
later, in a survey by Messrs. Scull & Heap, these islets are pre- 



sentcd as Wind-mill Island, which is described as commencing above 
Pine street, and extending in a southerly direction nearly the whole 
length of the portion of Southwark then built up, and the north 
end as connected "with Cooper's Point on the Jersey shore. In 
Allen's plan of the City of Philadelphia and adjoining Districts, 
published by Tanner, in 1830, Wind-mill Island is represented 
as beginning below Chesnut street, extending along the lower 
part of the City and upper part of Southwark, as far as Mead 
alley ; and a bar, bare at low water, is described as commencing 
a little north of the island, and running northwardly along the 
upper part of the City and part of the Northern Liberties to 
Willow street, whilst on the Southern part of the island, a like 
bar extended along Southwark to the Navy Yard. Sidney's 
map of Philadelphia makes Wind-mill Island extend from above 
Chesnut down to Shippen street, and connects the bars north 
and south with the island. 

In 174G and '47, John Harding, a miller by trade, obtained 
possession of this island, then a mass of mud. He, aided by his 
son, built a wharf and erected a wind-mill thereon, at a cost of 
about X600. Harding was about taking measures to become 
permanent owner by legal grant from the proprietaries of the 
island, when he died of a fever, it is said, contracted whilst 
working in the mud. His administrators, George Adams and 
his son, John Harding, conveyed by indenture dated June 1st, 
1749, the wind-mill with all his rights, to George Allen, ship- 
Avright, of the City of Philadelphia. 

On the 25th July, 1749, George Allen convej-ed, by deed poll 
endorsed on said indenture, the above property and rights to 
William Brown, in fee simple, William Brown made the pux*- 
chase upon the assurance from Richard Peters, Esq., Secretary 
of the province, that ho should have the proprietaries' grant for 
so much of the island as would include the improvements, and a 
little more for his better accommodation. He, however, soon 
finding the whole of the island necessary, obtained a grant for it 
from Lieut. Governor James Hamilton, dated December 9th, 
1761, on a lease for ninety-nine years, at an annual rent of one 
shilling; sterling. 



The title by lease acquired by William Brown, was disposed 
of to sundry individuals, who from time to time became owners 
of portions of Wind-mill Island, titles to which have been trans- 
mitted by deeds and wills now upon record in the appropriate 
offices of the State of Pennsylvania. Thus, for example, on the 
5th of May, 1762, William Brown and wife, by deed, conveyed 
to John Mifflin in fee a lot of 200 feet front, and again on July 
23d of the same year, another lot of 200 feet, adjoining the 
former, to Benjamin Mifflin. Benjamin Mifflin, by deed dated 
May 6th, 1776, recorded in Deed Book D. 55, p. 443, at Phila- 
delphia, conveyed the same to the said John Mifflin, who again 
by deed of December 8th, 1796, recorded at Philadelphia, in 
Deed Book D. 68, p. 150, conveyed the two lots 400 feet in the 
whole, to Anthony Cuthbert, in fee simple for the sum of <£350. 

x\gain, on June 5th, 1766, William Brown and wife conveyed to 
Thomas Cuthbert in fee simple, a lot of 200 feet front, begin- 
ning at a post 130 feet southward from a bakehouse, and 
bounded on the south by a lot of 130 feet, granted to Thomas 
Willing, and about 200 feet north of one John Church's lot, for 
the sum of £10. Thomas Cuthbert dying, his son Anthony 
became possessed of the southern portion of this lot, and his 
other son, Samuel, of the northern portion. Samuel and wife 
subsequently by deed of October 7th, 1818, sold their portion 
to the brother, Anthony Cuthbert. Anthony Cuthbert became 
owner of three lots, amounting in all to 600 feet, which by deed 
of October 6th, 1819, was legally conveyed to Weston C. 
Donaldson and John Lang, for $3,000, and they conveyed by 
deed of May 10th, 1832, to Jeremiah H. Sloan, who again for 
the same sum, sold to Edwin A. Stevens on June 19tli, 1834, 
who still claims the same. All the above named parties were 
citizens of the City and County of Philadelphia, and the several 
deeds are recorded at the City and County offices. 

By the fourth Section of the Act of Assembly of September 
25th, 1786, Wind-mill Island was made a part of Philadelphia 
County. See 2 Smith, page 130. When the City was re- 
incorporated, March 11th, 1789, that part of the island oppo- 



6 

site to it fell within the jurisdiction of the City of Philadelphia. 
See Neal vs. The Commonwealth, 17 Sergeant & Rawle, p. 67. 

From the foregoing narrative, derived from authentic sources, 
three things clearly appear : 

1st. That the State of Pennsylvania holds a fee simple right 
to the island. This island was part of the original grant.* Now, 

* Patent from Charles II. to James, Duke of York and Albany, dated March 

20, 1664 : 

" All that part of the main land of New England, beginning at a certain 
place called or known by the name of St. Croix, next adjoining to New Scotland, 
in America, and from thence extending along the sea coast unto a certain place, 
Fomaque or romaquid, and so \ip the river thereof to the furthermost head of 
the same, as it tendeth northward; and extending from thence to the river of 
Kombequin, and so upwards and by the shortest course to the river Canada north- 
ward ; and also all that island or islands called by the several names of MeitowacJc, 
or Lon"- Island, situate and being towards the west of Cape Cod, and the nar- 
row Iliyansetts, abutting upon the main laud between the two rivers, then called 
or known by the several names of Connecticut and Hudson's Rivers, and all the 
land from the west side of Connecticut River to the east side of Delaware Bay ; 
and also all those several islands called or known by the name of Martin's Vin- 
yard or Nantucks, otherwise Nantucket. 

The Duke of York, being thus seized, did by his deeds of lease and release, 
bearing date the 23d and 24th days of June, 1664, in consideration of a compe- 
tent sum of money, grant and convey a part thereof unto John, Lord Berkley, 
Baron of Stratton, and George Cartaret, of Sallrims, in Devon, wlio were then 
members of the King's Council, and to their heirs and assigns forever; bounded 
and described as follows: 

All that tract of land adjacent to New England, and lying and being to the 
westward of Long Island and Manhatta's Island, and bounded on the east part 
by the main sea, and part by Hudson's River, and hath upon the west, Delaware 
Bay OR Hiver, and cxtcndeth southward to the main ocean as far as Cape May 
at the mouth of Dehiware Bay, and to the northward as far as the northernmost 
branch of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is in 41 degrees 4 minutes of 
latitude, which said tract of land is hereafter to be called Nova Ccesarica or 
New Jersey, in as full and ample manner as the same is granted unto the said 
Duke of York, by the before recited letters patent." 

The Charter of Charles II to William Pcnn, dated March 4th, 1681 : 
"Do give and grant imto the said William Penn, his heirs and assigns all that 
tract of land in America, with the Islands therein contained, as the same is bounded 
i]/i tlie cast by Delaware River, from twelve miles distance northwards of New 
('astlc Town, unto the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude, if the said 
river doth extend so far northward, but if the said river shall not extend so far 
northward, then by the said river so far as it doth extend, and from the head of 
the said river, the eastern bounds are to be determined by a mcrdian line, to be 
drawn from the head of the said river unto the said 4od degree. The said land 
to extend westward five degrees in longitude, to be computed from the said 
eastern bounds. And the said lands to be bounded on the north by the begin- 
ning of the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude, and on the south by 
a circle d awn at twelve miles distance from New Castle, northward and west- 
ward unto the beginning of the fortieth degree of northern latitude, and then 
by a straight line westward to the limits of longitude above mentioned." 



if this original title could, hj auj means, be invalidated, it would 
be abundantly established by an act of agreement executed by 
commissioners, appointed by New Jersey and Pennsylvania for 
that purpose, on the 26th day of April, 1783, and subsequently 
ratified and confirmed by the Legislatures of both States, by 
which the claim of Pennsylvania was fully and unequivocally 
allowed, as declared in the third clause of that agreement. See 
2 Smith, p. 151. 

2d. That whatever rights the aforesaid William Brown and 
others enjoyed, were so enjoyed by virtue of a lease obtained 
from Lieut. Governor Hamilton, the FEE simple remaining in 
the State of Pennsylvania. 

3d. That upon the expiration of this lease, in 1860, all rights 
enjoyed under the lease must cease, and the absolute possession 
of the island revert to the State. 

The petition of the Districts, the Councils and other public 
authorities interested, represented by the convention, and the 
convention by this Committee, is, that on the expiration of said 
lease, the title of the State to Wind-mill Island be vested in the 
consolidated City of Philadelphia. 

The party resisting this petition is Mr, George N. Tatham, of 
Philadelphia, Avho claims title and asks the Legislature of Penn- 
sylvania for a perfection of the same. 

It appears that Mr. Tatham, without notifying any party claim- 
ing interest in Wind-mill Island, and, as is believed, not with- 
out abundant knowledge of the existence of such claimants, made 
application on the 11th day of July, 1849, to the Surveyor Gen- 
eral for a warrant of survey " OF all that part of the island 
commonly called Wind-mill Island, in the River DelaAvare, oppo- 
site the City of Philadelphia, which lies south of or below the 
canal cut through the said island from east to west by the Cam- 
den and Philadelphia Steamboat Ferry Company, (wliich canal 
is nearly opposite Walnut Street, in the City of Philadelphia.) 
The said part of the Island being bounded on the north by the 
said canal, and on the south, east and west by the low water 



8 

mark of the River Delaware, excepting only out of the applica- 
tion a lot of two hundred feet front, extending across the island 

between parallel lines, now in the possession of Walls, 

and formerly claimed by John Church, 7io part of which island 
now applied for has been heretofore appropriated to individual 
ownership under the authority of the State of Pennsylvania." 
An order of survey and valuation was issued on the same day, 
which was returned on the 4th August, 1849, giving the con- 
tents at 21 acres and 70 perches, with a valuation of $15 per 
acre, amounting to $320 56. The money was paid and the 
patent issued to Mr. Tatham. 

On the 13th of October following, an application for the 
remaining part of the island, '■'■excepting only out of this appli- 
cation, a certain lot of 200 feet on the westerly front, continuing 
of and about that width, and being parallel and adjoining on the 
south line of the said survey to J. Fox and M. Preston, and 
whicli excepted lot is now in the possession of the heirs or assigns 
of John Smith, deceased, no part of which island now applied 
for has been heretofore appropriated to individual ownership 
under the authority of the State of Pennsylvania.'' 

An order of valuation and survey issued on the 15th of the 
same month, and it was found to include 6 acres and 94 perches, 
at $30 per acre. The money was paid and the patent issued. 

Mr. Tatham, it Avill be perceived, declares that the parts of 
the island claimed by him have never been " appropriated to 
individual ownership under the authority of the State of Penn- 
sylvania," whereas, John Harding, in the year 1740, by express 
permission of the proprietaries, improved Wind-mill Island; and 
subsequently, William Brown had an express agreement executed 
with the Penns, Avhich, by the laws of Pennsylvania, entitled 
him to the possession of the whole island. He and his succes- 
sors enjoyed the right of possession and use of the island by vir- 
tue of this agreement or lease, under the eye of the proprietary, 
officers and the public authorities of the City, under the provin- 
cial government, up to the revolution, a period of thirty years. 
The title thus acquired has continued to this day, and is good 
and valid under the law of Pennsylvania. 



9 

The following lucid opinion of Judge Woodward, of the Su- 
preme Court, in the case of Jones vs. Tatham, in relation to Mr. 
Tatham's title, will probably settle the question in the minds of 
all right thinkers : — 

"The question, then, is whether, in view of all that was before 
the court below, the plaintiff exhibited a valid title to the land 
in controversy. I hold that it was not valid: — 

1st. Because it was taken for part and not for the Avhole of 
Wind-mill Island. 

This island was annexed to Pennsylvania by a compact be- 
tween Pennsylvania and New Jersey, of 1Y83, ratified by Acts 
of Assembly of both States the same year. 2 Smith's Laws, 77. 
******* 

On the 10th day of July, 1849, Mr. Tatham, the plaintiff, 
took a warrant for part of the island, and had that part valued, 
surveyed and returned into the Land Office, according to the 
Act of Assembly of 27tli January, 1806, regulating the sale of 
islands in the river Delaware, and on the 22d August, 1849, ob- 
tained his patent for the part surveyed. Such is his title. 

Islands in the great rivers of Pennsylvania were never the 
subjects of appropriation by office-right or settlement, under 
either the provincial or State government. The proprietaries 
appropriated them to their own use, by special warrants. The 
State has pursued the same policy. From the first settlement 
of the country, they were withdrawn from appropriation at the 
prices fixed for other land, and each was to be sold for the best 
price that could be obtained. Per Duncan, J., in Hunter vs. 
Howard, 10 S. & R. 245. The policy dictated that they should 
be sold as wholes and not in parts, else whatever waste land a 
particular island contained, and few islands are without some 
waste land, would be left without a purchaser. Accordingly the 
5th Section of the Act of Assembly of 6th March, 1793, au- 
thorizing the sale of lands in the Susquehanna river, forbids a 
warrant for ^^any less quantity/ of land than the whole of 
any such island." And to the same effect is the Act of Assem- 



10 



Lly of 27tli January, 1806, directing the sale of lands in the 
Delaware, Ohio, and Allegheny rivers, under the provisions of 
which the plaintiflf's title originated. The first section of this 
Act authorizes the officers of the Land Office to issue warrants 
for '■'■any unaj^propriated island" in these rivers. By the 2d 
section, the officers of the Land Office, "on application made 
for an island as aforesaid" are to appoint three disinterested 
reputable persons, to estimate and value the land '■Hn such island;" 
and before they enter on this duty, they are to take an oath 
"that they will justly estimate and a true valuation make of all 
the land per acre contained in such island;" and on their certi- 
fied return the Secretary of the Land Office is to issue his pa- 
tent to the applicant, he having first paid at least a third of the 
real valuation of "such island." I might refer to more legisla- 
tion exempting islands from the ordinary operations of the Land 
Office, but these Acts are enough for my purpose. 

It seems to me impossible to doubt, in view of the settled po- 
licy of Pennsylvania, and of the very express language of these 
Acts of Assembly, that a title founded in an application for 
part of an island, is a nullity. No authority in Pennsylvania 
has ever authorized such a warrant, survey and patent. They 
are not simply without authority ; they are against, in violation 
and contempt of law. The Commonwealth, as a sovereign, has 
at least the common right of an individual to dispose, as she 
will, of that which is her own ; and when she has said she will 
not gell a part of any one of her islands — that whosoever buys 
must buy the whole — Avhat is the illegal act of her servants 
AYorth in issuing title-papers for less than a whole island ? The 
beds of some of our principal rivers have been appropriated un- 
der specific legislation, but no man has supposed that anything 
less than compliance with the statutory provisions would give him 
title to the ground and the minerals over which those rivers flow. 
The truth is, grants in violation of these statutes, enacted upon 
peculiar policy and for specific purposes, transcend the powers 
of the Land Office, and arc absolutely void." 



- 11 

It was suggested in the argument that Wind-mill Island has 
become two islands, and that the portion taken by Mr. Tatham, 
lying south of the canal, is the whole of an island, within the 
meaning of the Act of 1806. There is an exception in his 
application, out of even this new island, of a lot of 200 feet front, 
extending across the island ; so that, in point of fact, he did not 
take his warrant for all the land lying south of the canal. But 
there is nothing in the suggestion that the canal has made two 
islands by dividing Wind mill Island in twain. In geography, 
it is true, an island is defined to be land surrounded by water ; 
but this means surrounded by water naturally, and not by arti- 
fi.cial means. There are many farms in Pennsylvania, and some 
towns, which, since the construction of our canals, have ceased 
to belong to the main land, if the school definition of an island is 
to be taken strictly, and applied to artificial as well as natural 
channels. But it is not so. Wind-mill Island is Wind-mill 
Island still. The canal divides^ only its surface, and leaves its 
character, geographically, as it was before the canal was built, 
and therefore the office-right obtained for the southerly portion 
of it can avail no party, except a landlord suing his tenant for 
possession. 

2d. Another reason why the plaintiff's title is invalid,, is, that 
a part of Wind-mill Island was previously appropriated by law, 
and therefore no title could be obtained under the Act of 1806. 

We have seen that the plaintiff's title originated on the 10th 
July, 1849. On the 14th of February, 1838, more than eleven 
years prior to the plaintiff's application, the Legislature of 
Pennsylvania authorized the Camden and Amboy Steamboat 
Ferry Company, " to improve the navigation between the States 
of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, by cutting through the island 
in the Delaware river opposite the city of Philadelphia, and con- 
structing a passage for the navigation of steamboats and vessels, 
of such dimensions and draught of water as the company shall 
deem most beneficial to the interests of the people of the said 
states. Provided, the said company shall not take exceeding 



12 

600 feet in width, of marsh or flats of said island, for the purpose 
of constructing the said passage." 

Now, this phiintiff alleges Wind-mill Island was vacant and 
unappropriated land of the Commonwealth in 1849. Then it was 
such in 1838. It was hers to dispose of at her pleasure. What 
rights did the state confer hj the section quoted ? Unquestion- 
ahly an incorporeal hereditament at the least. 

The Legislature intended to grant to the company the right 
of navigation through Wind-mill Island, and to make such use 
of 600 feet of the island, as in the judgment of the company 
should be necessary for maintaining that navigation. After such 
a grant, and after entry and exercise of the right, Wind-mill 
Island was no longer open to appropriation under the Act of 
1806. How could the whole island be appropriated on warrant 
and survey, wliere a permanent easement had been granted for 
a valuable consideration ? How could " all the land, per acre, 
contained in the island," be valued for purpose of sale, with such 
an outstanding franchise ? I know it may be said, the fee re- 
mained in the Commonwealth, and could be valued and granted 
subject to the casement, but this Avould not be according to either 
the letter or spirit of the Act of 1806. The island could be 
appropriated only under that act, and that act contemplated no 
appropriation of a qualified or encumbered fee. The purposes 
of the Acts of 1806 and 1838 are inconsistent, then, and the 
latter repeals the former as to Wind-mill Island. Without new 
legislation, and whilst this franchise remains in full life, no office- 
right for this island can be obtained. The Commonwealth holds 
it primarily in trust for the protection and enjoyment of the 
granted franchise, and with power to dispose of it in any manner 
not inconsistent with vested rights, which the legislature may 
hereafter prescribe." 

With such an opinion from Judge Woodward before him, who 
can doubt the absolute invalidity of Mr. Tatham's title ? He 



does not hold the island by any conceivable moral right ; and he 
assuredly has no legal one. This latter point is fully admitted 
by the very act of petitioning the legislature for a perfection of 
title ! If his title be good and valid, what can the legislature do 
to make it better ? 

Can Mr. Tatham have any good reason to hope for a perfec- 
tion of his title ; or, in less ambiguous words, can he hope that 
the legislature will convey to him for $519,18, an island, which, 
from its location, would command a quarter of a million of 
dollars ? He can have no good reason to hope for the exercise 
of such misguided munificence. The legislature of Pennsylvania 
will be beguiled by no specious plea which the ingenuity of Mr. 
Tatham may furnish ; and as for any plea founded in consistency, 
in the fitness of things, to say nothing of equity and law, be his 
imagination never so fruitful, and his courage worthy of a better 
cause, they will utterly fail him. 

What kind of hope can Mr. Tatham entertain ? — that of 
forcing the city into a compromise and advantageous purchase of 
his alleged title ? Such a report has indeed reached the ear of 
this committee, fixing the price of the title at $2,000,000. What 
truth there may be in this report, this committee will not deter- 
mine; but it is evident, that just in so far as it is truthful, especi- 
ally the latter part of it, it goes to manifest a purpose to profit, 
to the fullest extent, by a claim notoriously without foundation 
in right or justice. If Mr» Tatham has proposed at all to com- 
promise, (which is well known to a member of this committee to 
have been done through one of the Messrs. Tathams, with full 
knowledge that the committee-man thus approached, was acting 
as such in behalf of the city,) he incurs the suspicion that he 
himself has no confidence in the strength or justice of his claim. 

Look at the admission implied in his application to the Legis- 
lature for perfection of title, and couple with it a proposition to 
-compromise with the city, and you perceive almost as unequivo- 
cal a confession of invalidity of title as though made by plain 
words in due manner and form. 



14 

If Mr. Tatham has legal or moral rights, his singular failure 
to establish them during an effort of several years at the State 
Capitol, as well as in several suits at law, is most unfortunate 
and astonishing, furnishing no flattering commentary upon the 
intelligence of the Legislature or the justice of the courts. The 
city of Philadelphia acknowledges no riglit or title in Mr. Tat- 
ham, and would therefore not readily consent to the payment of 
any sum, especially an exhorbitant one, to compromise with 
him. 

The act of 1793 annexes the island to Pennsylvania beyond 
all doubt. It is therefore perfectly within the power of the 
State to vest its title in the city. The justice, utility, and reason- 
ableness of such grant need but little comment. The consolida- 
tion act, recently passed, bringinging the city, districts and 
townships into one great municipality, justifies the expectation 
that the metropolis of Pennsylvania will at length rise to the 
magnitude, strength and wealth from which she is supposed to 
have been kept by her former mode of government. But such 
prosperity must, in the very nature of things, be absolutely in- 
compatible with a defective harbor. The Delaware furnishes the 
most ample means for the accommodation of vessels of the 
largest class, in large numbers ; and nothing is now so much 
needed in order to secure the most extensive commercial buiness, 
as the speedy and proper improvement of our harbor. No better 
harbor, and none so safe, can be found in the Union than that 
of Pliiladclphia can be made to be. A single glance at the po- 
sition of Wind-mill Island will show how absolutely necessary it 
is, in order to make such improvement, that the city should pos- 
sess a clear title to and full control over the island. 

Tlie wharf front of the city is 5,400 feet, that of the Districts 
of the Northern Liberties and Kensington, between Vine street 
and Gunner's Run, 7,000 feet, and of Southwark, between the 
Navy Yard and South street, 3,200, making in all a Avharf 
of 15,600 feet. Wind-mill Island, at the distance of 800 feet 
therefrom forms a barrier of some 3,000 feet, whilst a large 
portion of tlic remainder of the wharf front is seriously affected 
by the bars Avhich extend Itoyond the island. 



15 

The island, it will be remembered, has grown from two small 
spots in the river first noticed in 1681, by sinking hulks and 
other timbers, which served as a nucleus for the collection of 
sand and other substances upon the muddy flats of the river bed. 
From beginnings so apparently inconsiderable, it has so increased 
as to furnish a surface above the water of some 3,000 feet, whilst 
its bars are extending north and south, and must eventually be- 
come fast land, and thus virtually close up and render the port 
useless. The building of wharves on the island, running far out 
into the water, must facilitate the accumulation of foreign mat- 
ter, and contribute to the rapid increase of the island. It should 
therefore never be allowed to pass into private ownership, but be 
placed at once and forever into that of the city, the natural 
and most deeply interested guardian of its commercial prosperity. 

The question of the entire removal of the island is one which 
the Convention and its committee desire to leave open, to be 
answered at some future time, as the wants of the port, in the 
deliberate and enlightened judgment, of the powers then in 
being, may demand. But it is important, vitally so, that the 
city should have it in its power to furnish the answer at the 
proper time. 

With the foregoing facts and suggestions before the Legisla- 
ture, this committee entertains the confident hope that a bill will 
at once be passed, vesting the title to Wind-mill Island in the 
City of Philadelphia, for the following reasons : 

1st. Such a bill would be founded in law. 
2d. In justice. 

3d. In a necessity vitally connected with the prosperity of the 
metropolis of the State of Pennsylvania. 

The change about to occur in the government of the city and 
county of Philadelphia, renders it desirable that the present 



16 

session of the Legislature should not close without the passage 
of such a bill. Mr. Tatham has failed to establish a claim, al- 
though he has had ample opportunity, and it is not just that 
legislation should be procrastinated for his further accommoda- 
tion, -when thereby serious wrong is inflicted upon other interests. 
The delay of legislation favorable to the city, is his studied 
policy, because it seems to give coloring to his claim, and furnish 
a glimmering hope that through some mishap, he may profit, or 
that, vexed, irritated and out of patience, in view of suffering 
public interests, upon the principle of choosing the lesser of two 
evils, the city may be induced to buy him off. If the petition 
of the city be founded in law and justice, as is believed, the 
Legislature cannot too speedily award to it the advantages which 
have been withheld mainly by reason of the frivolous, unfounded 
and preposterous claim of Mr. Tatham. 

H. J. BROWN, 

Chairman, 

From Board of Commissioners of the Northern Liberties. 

JOHN CLOUDS, 

From Board of Commissioners of Kensington. 

JOHN THOMPSON, 
(3d Ward,) 

From Board of Commissioners of Southwark. 

JAMES GOODMAN, 

From Board of Port Wardens. 

JACOB E. HAGERT, 

Select Council. 

JOHN YARROW, 

Common Council. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



mil MP mil mil IIP 



014 356 535 5 § 



